There was a fair sized article on Fox News today about Hillary and the secure phone.
For those who've never used a secure phone.....it's an interesting experience. I spent roughly twenty years of my life.....connected to the phone. At one point.....I actually had one on my desk for five years.
Hillary's chief whine about not wanting to use it.....and go use just a regular phone....to talk sensitive or classified matters? This is mostly about the pitch and static in the background.
Well, yeah.....that's what you get with the secure phone.
In the early 1980s....the only choice of phone was the STU-II. If you wanted to rate the ability to hear and grasp the conversation.....on a scale of one to ten.....it was probably a '5' at best. The guy could have been sitting fifty feet away, and it still didn't matter. The talker had to speak clearly and distinctively.....without any funny accent.....and at a very slow speed.
I had to sit one day and react to a request, and the guy had a fast-paced dialect, and a deep southern accent. I probably had him repeat everything he said.....at least three times.
In the late 1980s.....they came out with the STU-III. Things improved (well....anything would be an improvement). I'd rate the ability to hear and grasp the conversation.....on a call of one to ten.....near a '7'. But this depended greatly on the line, and you could still have some guy calling from some installation or location where the lines were crappy (like Italy for example).
So I look at Hillary and this whole secure phone problem of hers, and understand the negativity. The sad thing about her choice here....is that a dozen-odd countries were probably listening in and got her entire conversation.
If you voted into office as President? My guess is that she'd toss out the secure phones and just use regular phones. Maybe that's a negative.....maybe it doesn't really matter. She might even go and toss the red-phone on the desk that connects to Putin.